Hampshire County Council

Executive Member for Policy and Resources Item 8a

9 April 2008

Merton Rise, Basingstoke - Project Update and Outcome of Phase 3 Marketing

Report of the Acting Director of Property, Business and Regulatory Services

(Summary of an EXEMPT decision)

1

Summary

1.1

The following decisions are sought:

That approval be given to:

a) The progress made on the procurement of the remaining infrastructure and implementation strategy for parts of the strategic landscape procurement;

b) The revised basis of sale of the Phase 2/Neighbourhood Centre Phase sub-parcels as set out in the report, with the Acting Director of Property, Business and Regulatory (Acting Head of Estates) authorised to settle detailed terms and conditions of sale, including any adjustment to or phasing of the purchase price that may be agreed;

c) The selection of the preferred purchasers for sub-phases 3a and 3b Merton Rise as set out in the report, with the Acting Director of Property, Business and Regulatory (Acting Head of Estates) authorised to settle detailed terms and conditions of sale, including any adjustment to the purchase price that may be agreed following a minor amendment to the scheme(s) of development; and

d) Additional reports on the marketing of the Merton Rise Employment Land and the project appraisal for the Eastern Shelterbelt Park to be made to the Executive Member for Policy and Resources in due course.

2

Reason

2.1

The continued design led basis of marketing and development of the County Council owned Merton Rise site in Basingstoke supports each of the three Corporate Priorities by the creation of a high quality and cohesively designed urban extension development (Enhancing Quality of Space); and providing a well managed and co-ordinated development with a mix of house types in terms of size and tenure, together with mixed-use retail and community facilities (including the replacement Everest Community College) (Hampshire Safer and More Secure for All). This approach to procurement will also achieve a programme of receipts to support the Capital Programme (Maximising Wellbeing).

3

Other options considered and rejected

3.1

One option might have been to identify an alternative basis of sale, without the provision of advance infrastructure and with no regard to design quality or the co-ordination of the development in terms of delivery. This would have resulted in a slower delivery of the site, with large areas likely to remain un-serviced and/or undeveloped, and with reduced capacity for the County Council to achieve control over either design quality or the pace of development. This option was rejected in order to progress the approved serviced land marketing strategy to achieve a high quality, cohesive development within the confines of the outline planning permission for the site.

4

Conflicts of interest declared by the decision-maker or other Executive Member consulted - None

5

Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - None

6

Reason(s) for the matter being dealt with if urgent - None